Epiprotect vs Suprathel vs Biobrane for SPT/DD Burns
Research type
Research Study
Full title
A Randomised, Prospective Clinical Trial comparing epidermal skin substitutes (Epiprotect, Suprathel and Biobrane) for the Treatment of Partial-Thickness Burns in Children
IRAS ID
251737
Contact name
Declan Collins
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
Chelsea and Westminster Hospital
Duration of Study in the UK
2 years, 11 months, 31 days
Research summary
Burns are a common injury and the severity ranges from minor to severe and life changing. Scalds, burns from hot liquids, are the most common cause of burn, representing 43% of all burns injuries. In the United Kingdom, on average 110 children are seen in emergency departments with burns. Deep burns require surgery and skin grafting; moderate-depth and superficial burns are treated conservatively with dressings. Dressing technology has evolved over the past few decades and a Cochrane review in 2013 concluded that the best outcomes occur with advanced dressings. These use various technologies to optimise wound healing by restoring the skin barrier and allowing the body to heal the burn. It is not clear, however, which specific products and technologies result in better wound healing. Best practice in the UK is to thoroughly clean the wound in theatre and apply the wound dressing there. The dressing remains in place allowing the skin to heal underneath. The skin substitutes have several benefits including reduced pain, faster healing, protection from infection, reduced fluid loss through evaporation and thereby can reduce the chance of the patient requiring skin grafts. We currently use two products for this purpose at our burns unit; Suprathel and Biobrane. Epiprotect is a new product that is on the market and uses a different technology to mimic human skin. We propose a pilot randomised control trial evaluating three skin substitute dressings used for scald burns in children. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate whether any product, and therefore technology, is superior. Whilst there are studies comparing different dressings for this purpose in the literature, there are not any comparing these products which are available in the United Kingdom and widely used.
REC name
London - Queen Square Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
19/LO/1283
Date of REC Opinion
21 Nov 2019
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion